I've always considered myself an agnostic insofar as I don't know or understand what it is that I'm supposed to believe in. That said, there are nevertheless some theistic claims I definitely disbelieve, e.g. I don't believe in Sekhmet, Zeus, or the divinity of a human being.

Karl,

If you employ scientific knowledge into your considerations, in other words, you'll use the argumentum ad rem, you'll find out that agnosticism can only refer to real beings, not the imagined ones. In consequence, you'll stop calling yourself a religious agnostic.

PS: If you're interested in this subject, you're welcome to listen to my video lectures on agnosticism:

THE FICTION OF AGNOSTICISM: CANI vs HUXLEY. TIME FOR NEW DEFINITIONS!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HqS7dSXlLQ&t=799s

INTERMEDIALISM vs AGNOSTICISM: CANI'S COMPLEX PLANE OF RELIGIOSITY vs DAWKINS’ LINEAR SCALE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBrOH2T8kx0&t=897s

Jean-Marc

Jean-Marc Kania Science often involves controversies over whether an entity of a certain type exists, and one can maintain an agnostic position on various grounds. So I don't see how "employing scientific knowledge into my considerations" forecloses agnosticism, since sometimes postulated or inferred objects turn out not to exist.

Karl: As I mentioned earlier, there is no reason you could not consider yourself an agnostic with regard to real beings. Unfortunately, religious agnosticism is senseless since refers to an imaginary being – god which, as known, is a man-made creation.

With regard the term "existence": This term is not an essential uniquely determined property of anything. Thus it cannot be a real predicate. In consequence, gods can exist in myths and do not exist in reality at the same time which is in line with Kant’s Maxim and CANI's Principle Of Coexistence of Independent Beings (CANI's Imperative of Independent Beings), based on the Laws of Nature (Physical Laws) according to which:

"GOD EXISTS FOR BELIEVERS AND

DOES NOT EXIST FOR NON-BELIEVERS"

By the way, based on D. Hume’s reasoning, one can state that the existence of non-physical beings, e.g. gods, is nothing else as:

“… a violation of the laws of nature and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against the “existence” of non-physical being, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined….”.

PS: I’ve explained the term “existence” in my video lecture on YouTube:

THE FICTION OF AGNOSTICISM: CANI vs HUXLEY. TIME FOR NEW DEFINITIONS!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HqS7dSXlLQ&t=799s

INTERMEDIALISM vs AGNOSTICISM: CANI'S COMPLEX PLANE OF RELIGIOSITY vs DAWKINS’ LINEAR SCALE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBrOH2T8kx0&t=897s

Jean-Marc Kania Atoms started out as an imagined entity (a "manmade" concept) in ancient Greece. Atomists believed atoms existed, others didn't, and presumably some folks didn't commit themselves either way but regarded the matter as an open question that might or might not be resolvable.

The history of science has many such entities: phlogiston (a hypothesized substance that turned out not to exist), Vulcan (a hypothesized planet that turned out not to exist), Pluto (a hypothesized planet that did turn out to exist), engrams (like god, no single currently agreed-on characterization, but turned out not to exist in the original sense). Lots of room for agnostic views as science develops.

None of this depends on whether existence is a property (or whether "exists" is a property-ascribing predicate). We can't always know in advance whether something real falls under a concept. Of course someone can't be a rational or logically consistent agnostic if they already believe that nothing falls under the concept in question. But with vaguely characterized concepts one may be agnostic because one doesn't know or understand what is supposed to be the existential issue at stake.

Karl

your reasoning here is interesting, if acceptance of an existence is the point. Does this include the acceptance of an idea? Surely it has an existence during the length of time it is agreed on? A god in ancient times was an idea which became agreed on before it existed as a god. Surely many scientific ideas are based on mathematics not experienced, therefore without proof, as gods are based on language and symbolism and as yet, unless you count Jesus, no one has seen one. Experience is the thing. A god is experienced so does this count, as experience is in a sense real?

Changes of perception and knowledge come into this range as Leibniz's monads were not necessarily believed in but have belief in with the development of cellular automata in the present. The structure of belief around a god is the problem here, but why make such fuss?

Stanley Wilkin

Ideas and concepts exist as psychological and sociological items but that is separate from agreement on or acceptance of what the idea represents or of what falls under the concepts.

You wrote: "A god in ancient times was an idea which became agreed on before it existed as a god." I reply: That is misleading; the idea of a god is not itself a god. Moreover, some ancient Egyptians may have agreed upon the idea of Sekhmet and believed the idea represented an actual being, but of course they were wrong in believing that; Sekhmet never existed. I am for sure an atheist as regards ancient Egyptian theism; however, I don't contenance the view that it is impossible for some folks to be agnostic about the existence of Sekhmet.

You wrote: "A god is experienced so does this count, as experience is in a sense real?" I reply: An experience as of a god is not an experience of a god: "S dreamt that God spoke to her" is not the same as "God spoke to S in a dream".

The generic question of whether God exists is vague and polysemic: what does the term "God" connote, what is the intended conception of God, and what counts as falling under that conception? I sure don't know and religious people just give me incoherent, implausible, or irreconcilable answers. But the possibility of some sort of pantheistic-compatible-with-physics view wouldn't be in the same category as the possibility of Nessie or Santa Claus.

Karl,

While I do not deny the legitimacy of your remarks, my point that people thought about and agreed on a god before further identifying it as one remains. A god might become an archetype or an experience of power, a storm or tidal wave for example and that power identified as something notable, exceptional and feared .In early Sumer this seems the process. in Eridu, fish were celebrated and worshipped prior to being an identified entity. a temple was built that began raising the celebrators, who knew that if they attended to the fish, sacrificed to them or sacrificed them the fish would multiply. but it was not the fish that became a god, it was water which provided it. Enkidu. God of creativity, thought and increase. The process was slow, Gods are not made in a day! They are negotiated, just like Yahweh and Allah. So this backs up god is an experience because without the affect that creates one, there cannot be one.

In early Sumer they thought people were made from Clay, but gods were too.

Go further back into the newly discovered Anatolia sites and the gods seem beckoning towards early ideas about humankind. Those carved and sculptured ideas became gods, and enabled the next steps.

Stanley Wilkin

You wrote: "So this backs up god is an experience because without the affect that creates one, there cannot be one."

It does nothing of the sort. Various natural phenomena and experiences may cause god-beliefs of various flavors, but neither the experiences themselves nor the ideas and concepts they engender are gods. You are confusing fictions and symbols with reality.

"...because without the affect that creates one, there cannot be one." This is true only because affects do not create gods in the first place but merely ideas of gods.

To Professor Karl Pfeifer:

As known, the term "existence" is not a predicate, so god (doesn't matter which one) can exist in myths and does not exist in reality. Based on the meaning of the term “agnosticism”, it is fully justified to call yourself agnostic concerning physical beings, but stating “I’m agnostic as to the existence of god, dwarf, and similar mythical and fairy-tale creatures", is fallacious.

The meaning of the word "god" is not defined any other way than based on an imagination and doesn't relate (as a being) to any real situation or facts. For obvious reasons, your argument from a comparison to ancient Greek ideas, is not reliable with regard to the existence of an imaged being, like e.g. a god. The ancient idea of atoms or other material beings cannot be compared with the idea of a god, which, as known, resulted from the fears and weaknesses, the ignorance of our primitive ancestors, whose knowledge was reduced to sorcery and magic.

If we cannot prove the existence of Nessi, Santa Claus, Elf, or any of the millions of man-made deities more or less popular,that would mean that we should be agnostics about the existence of those man-made creatures?

With regard to the existence of a god, on the contrary to the agnostic statement of Richard Dawkins:"GOD ALMOST CERTAINLY DOESN'T EXIST" (which nota bene contradicts the facts, science, and logic, and most of all it is the inconlusive conclusion from Dawkins' considerations presented in his book "The God Delusion"), in middle of 80’s after listening to the lecture of Dr. M.M. O’Hair in MSU, TN (an American activist supporting atheism and separation of church and state), I have postulated for the first time the statement:

"GOD EXISTS FOR BELIEVERS AND

DOES NOT EXIST FOR NON-BELIEVERS"

which I’ve published and explained, i.a., in my books.

PS: Well, what kind of reasoning one can follow, depends, i.a., on personal knowledge and worldview. Tastes, non-rational ideas, beliefs, views shall not be discussed unless they are of a prescriptive nature. However some ideas may become real, but our intelligence should allow us to discriminate between fiction and reality, as in the case of the physical existence of mythical and fairy-tale creatures.

Karl, you have ignored the terms negotiate and choose from the description I gave. I am not sure how I confuse symbols with reality as the process I gave you is legitimatised by cultural and historical processes. The symbol is one means whereby god is created, amongst others, within negotiation and choice. The same process continues now, most visibly in Islam, My end point is the inadequacy of Dawkins perspective as he sees religiosity as a single understanding to be reflected on and either approached or not approached.

In the past, belief was not evident as a means of constructing a relationship with gods, as religion, or rather gods, provided tools for understanding society, the world, etc. Ideas formed from this basis, which is what I first claimed, therefore our relationship cannot be genuinely fixed through our position on the matter.

Stanley Wilkin A god cannot be created by negotation of concepts. What is created is not a god but just another conception or idea of a god.

Karl, we are talking at cross purposes and since there is simply repetition here and nothing is going forward I will leave it alone.

The inherent problem I think is that you see god or gods as a plausible proposition and I do not.

Well, I'm still interested in opinions on:

"Can Dawkins' Linear Scale of Religiosity, including 5 categories of Religious Agnosticism, be considered correct if we apply rational argumentation?"

Good morning Jean-Marc Kania, I know some people who are over religious, in that they reject science/medicine & consider prayer will cure everything. That is itself evil as there is a statement something like religion without science is lame & science without religion is blind, or it may be the other way around as I'm forgetting. I basically think, religion is not the point, some people who go to church are evil, then some people who never go to church are good, so the building in itself means nothing. There are all religions, there is science/medicine also which has a lot of evidence in support of it.